Dont be fooled, Kenny's poo job is fake.

Todays lecture was introduced by tutor, Eldon Booth. He spoke of his interests with moving image, and how he liked the idea of blurring the line between fact and fiction. These two values can easilly merge together in film and television today to create a realistic sense of fiction. This is done with the use of camera transitions and techniques. The film "Elephant" which we viewed today is a film which clearly portrays this.

For Eldon, fact vs fiction seemed to be something strong which drove his moving image pieces. He spoke of how old "handy cam" videos from the late 90's on programmes such as "worlds dumbest criminals" were easilly packaged programmes, (as they were merely sent in by viewers and needed no extra filming) portraying a strong sense of reality television. This was because these tapes were filmed by every day people like you and me. They were not of high quality and often portrayed camera shake, out of focus shots, natural lighting, or background noise. Today in the film and television industry, they have used these ammateurish techniques to mimmick the feeling of a false sense of reality. For example, In Eldon's work "withdrawl" each of the scenes are fake, and have been acted out by his brother and grandfather. However, because he chose to film this with the "handy cam" in mind, it enacted reality fimling, creating visual trickery. THIS is how the line between fact and fiction can gel together.

The film "Elephant" uses the exact same techniques to trick the viewer into thinking what is happening is reality. Of coarse, the storyline WAS based on a true event, but as they have put their own interpretation onto this event (tried to fill in the missing view points of the collumbine attackers, students, ect.) they need to make this as believable as possible. This has been done throught the use of natural lighting, blurred camera shots (eg. when the boy in the yellow shirt sits down at reception, his face is blurred out for a few moments) and as much background noise as possible. Also, shots are long and drawn out, which make the films pace a lot slower - like in real life. We see all view points of students and the attackers, which are repeated but shown at a seperate view point each time. Each view point,continues for quite some time, showing where that particular person is going and doing at the same time as everyone else. This cut up, repetition has been used to create a sense of mundane daily routine. The essay "Sublime Anarchy in Gus Van Sant's Elephant", touches on this idea. It states from the film that -

"John's dad is drunk again. With a resigned air, John insists on taking the wheel and drives himself to school, where he runs through what the viewer learns is routine: car keys are deposited at the office, safely out of dad's hands; then john phones his brother to come collect their father."

Kenny was a "mockumentary" film about Kenny Smyth, a chemical toilet cleaner, played by actor Shane Jacobson. This was a laughable documentary spoof, which had no real fact involved.

"Funnier than bum full of m&m's! This mockumentary is great for a laugh. it's the sort of movie you go to with a group of friends and have some good out-loud belly laughs. There are so many one-liners in here that I'll have to wait till its out on DVD to note them down. However, amidst all the hilarity and pooh, Kenny is a sensitive bloke who has family problems like all of us. He is a real, regular bloke! This film also stands as an indictment on society. It brings the silver-tails back to earth with a resounding "plop" After all, everyone has to cr*p!! The final scene (not counting those in the credits) is a re-make of an old classic revenge prank that looses nothing in it's reworking. Loved Kenny's dad!" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822389/

This film most certainly blurred the line between documentary and fiction because even though they made his life look real, and documentary-like through the ammateur techniques, there was in reality no such toilet cleaner living in a trailer park.

ER is a television programme which also decided to use these techniques in order to involve the viewer into the programme itself. In one of the test shows (filmed live) they had the camera shoving itself right up against doctors, as if you were in the film itself. The jerky camera movements, actors eye contact with the camera, and following panning all made the television show look realistic, just like "Elephant", "withdrawl" or "Kenny", again using the "handy cam" techniques of the late 90's. But no matter how real it looked, It was all a fictional plot. Simply a fabricated existence.

pop art worth less?

This lesson we had lecturer Richard Orjis come to speak with us about his work, and how he first put himself out into the world. He spoke of his interests with flowers and how these are important to his practice because of them being culturally safe, and that he sees them as defining beauty. Overall, he seemed to be a very spiritualy strong person. One other thing which came up was his interest in the shift between hight culture and popular culture. What are my thoughts on these? Well if you ask me, you shouldn't have asked.

Ha ha, but no seriously. When I define high culture in my mind, several things float in. Louis Vitton bags. Snotty broads smoking cigars, handling their money while they stand grinning smuggly at gallery dealers. And the silence. The deafening silence of a gallery. Will I be kicked out if I whisper something into the harsh white void? I also think of classical music. And opera. Loud, horrid, and shreiking. It all seems so rough and threatening. I have come to the conclusion that high culture is something which cuts a strong line between the "high breeds" and the barbaric oafs. I hate to see such patronising difinity being made. Popular culture art is defined as cheap, and tacky. Something which perhaps was made with no actual idea of the real value in art. Something such as Andy Warhol's multiple celebrity prints, or Duchamp's readymades. They are seen as inferrior to "high" craft. after all, who would want to buy a toilet? That cant be real art. But then I think that perhaps they want to be defined as "popular culture" for a reason.

Popular culture breaks the restraints of regular art. It is free and loud and different. It expresses things which the world are interested in and often in a very relaxed nature compared to "high" art which is very tight, and strict on formalities. There is room for experementation, often breaking the boundaries of the formal white canvas. Popular culture art exists in t-shirts, album covers and magazines, expressing Bright colors, Music, and Celebrity culture. And although some pop culture artists did display their art in a formal gallery, they still often broke a few formalities. An artist which does come to mind is Steve Keene. He produces mass produced paintings over and over, selling them for a very small price in an atmosphere similar to a bustling market. This is something which Richard Orjis was explaining. He likes the idea that an image can be very easilly accumulated. Magazines are an example, where you can often simply tear out an image if you like it, and stick it onto your wall. What steve keene is doing is very similar. by making multiples of an image (like in a magazine) he can sell it for a small price, and everyone can have a genuine piece of art for your home.

"Steve Keene says his art is like a CD — and this has nothing to do with his designing cover art for some of the world's hippest indie rock bands. It's disposable and forgettable or pleasing and memorable, depending on who owns the wall where the piece hangs." - http://www.thegreenbuilding.net/gallery/press.html

Limits increase the value of art. By having less and less of a certain image, like an original painting it increases the ammount of money it's worth. so why do it? Pop culture is known for creating "throw away" art, which is created in the masses. On T-shirts, canvas or paper."High" art is far too cherished. Surely by having the idea that pop art is barbaric and "un-art-like" , then an ACTUAL art piece such as a Monet would be valued and cherished more. It is not "throw away" art. there is only one.

But I dont see the difference in value between a rembrant compared to a piece by say, steve keene. They are both art, and like an expensive bag, or a cheap one, which ever you like better should in my opinion hold more personal value.

Do ya research!

Research for me, is the hardest damn thing in the world. It can take a long time to finish my research processes, and actually see where I am heading with these. I think for me it is very important that I push myself to develop on my thoughts, and accomplish a strong concluding point. For me, my conclusions are often some of my biggest weaknesses, and that is mainly due to lack in background research. To focus on my ideas, I must proceed in the examination of my concepts, and find out how these relate to the things I am reading and viewing.

When starting any kind of research based task such as an essay or assignment, I usually start off with a brainstorm. A kind of map that spits out all of my ideas and thoughts around a certain topic that I have chosen. Each thought can branch out into another, and from this I can begin to sift out and pick the most important ponts from all of the chaos. soon after, I may hop onto the internet to get a basic idea of someting that I am trying to research (like a book, event or artist model). I say a rough idea because the internet often warps the truth a little. Once I am certain about what kind of things I am looking for I could move onto a library to get further information on these details. And sometimes, a few straighter details than the internet.

This makes me think back to something which Grant told us in today's lecture. Colonialism. Settlers coming into New Zealand, and building their own structures and government with no real knowlege of the land. They hadn't even thought about the phisicality of New Zealands hilly atmosphere before they decided to plonk a pre-designed road layout over the top. What they did, was take a chunk of road from edinburrugh, copy and duplicate it onto a part of Dunedin. They only built from the things they knew. Even street names were exactly the same. The only problem was that by merely duplicating what they knew without any real research, the grid shaped road, suited for a flat type of landscape was a total missmatch to the bumpy curves of New Zealand.

This is how I see my work. If I only thought about ideas in my head, and wrote duplicates of the things I already know, I am going to end up with a pile of useless, insufficient reasearch. I wont be able to extend on my thoughts, or back up ideas with new knowledge or quotes. My research will be rather one sided, having only one point of view, and possibly a few twisted truths. If I were to talk about someone I didn't know at all like Charles Dickens, and wrote about him in an essay without background investigation saying, well he was a guy who wrote a book about something. it's obvious that I will fail my essay. My content has to be explained and justified.

For me, my X factor would come from watching and looking. Seeing things, and consuming as much visual information as I can handle. I am a visual learner. And this is most likely why I would get a bigger kick out of a book of photos, rather than a thick paperback. I also like to physically research. Go places and look. Take in the atmosphere. I may go to the place in which I am going to set my phototshoot, and take a few snapshots, so that I can further think and plan out how I am going to approach the task at hand. I find joy in finally concluding what my ideas are, and how I am about to portray these.

value is the key to sales, originality is the key to value.

Todays lecture was spent mostly learning about the differences between art sales and commercial sales. I also learned about the value of art, and why art should be valued. Lecturer Bepen Bhana helped to explain these ideas, after we viewed an episode of The aprentice UK.

In The aprentice UK both teams (stealth and eclipse) had to choose two artists of which they would hang and sell their works in a small gallery. When presented with their selection of artists , I felt that each team wanted to steer towards the artist which made the most asthetically pleasing work. The work which was not weird, or too out of the usual. The program constantly stereotyped art as a crazy, and expensive. Something which doesn't make a lot of sense either. This was because a lot of people in each of the teams didn't seem to quite get it, making fun of the photographer who had captured images of fish over curvy bodies. They made it look like rubbish too. The indian man remarked that there was a picture of a blank space and a cello, and he could buy all three of those items down the road for a few quid. Because the fashion photographer was selling her lip portraits for such a high price, it also stereo typed art as money. However, not all art is money. Often people do work for free because they feel that putting a price on art soils it completely.

The value of art ranges vastly from nothing to everything. As in the program, they portrayed several photographs of lips, all vastly overpriced according to the boss, talking to his apprentices. It's a photograph, yet nobody ever spoke of how many photographs there were in this set. was it a set? were they a one off? In terms of value, I would say that any item with fewer copies made would be much more valued, such as an original painting. This is because it has created rarity within the item. There is only one. Photographs are often not as valued because you could initially make thousands of copies.

the apprentices seemed to have no clue about the value of art, assuming that the images that were prettier had more face value. This is definatly not so, as the other team sold more images of dead fish, than they did the lucious lips. there were many photographs of the lips, with no variety. Yes, they were different in terms of colour, but they were not original within themselfs in terms of images. For example, if there were many lips and one eye for sale, which do you think would sell first? originality is often the key to value. And making something more valuable can lead to better sales.

Is gallery art better? I think not.

Today we heard about the art practices of sculptor, Dion Hitches, and the ways in which he manages the business side of his gallery entries.Selling art is just as important as making it, and you need to plan your business well. While explaining this to us, he also explained the differences between private art commisions, and public art projects. I soon began to pick my favorite.

Basically, a private art commission is when somone makes a private order for a particular artist, to get a piece of art specially made for them. When you are responding to a commission, you must always make sure that you are getting a good deal on their deposit, prefferably 50% of the cost. This is aspecially important incase there is a problem getting the full ammount payed to you later on.

The difference between private commisions and public projects, is that a public art project details entering your pieces of art into a gallery space to be shown and sold. There are no deposits made on the artworks because nobody has chosen to buy them yet. Basically, it is as if you are putting your items into a very expensive shop, for sale. A private commission is much more immidiate when it comes to making a sale because the person buying has ordered you to make it in advance, practically guaranteeing a sale. In public art spaces, it may take up to 10 years to make a sale, as your art floats from gallery to gallery. As Dion Hitches told us, his piece "manatepatupiahere" only sold after 7 years of being in many, many galleries.

Another key difference between public and private projects, is that private projects tend not no be anything special. Usually when an artist is comissioned to make something they are merely extending their actual art practice, or in other words, regenerating old designs to fit into the needs of the consumer. When an artist is making a work to place in a gallery space, it is generally a fresh, new idea. They will still need to think about what type of art will suit particular kinds of galleries, however it will still be something new and eye catching so that their art will be accepted into the gallerys show. There is no need to worry about acceptance within private commissions because the consumer has already chosen you, the artist, and paid for half of your art piece. This might often mean that you are spending a lot more money at a gallery, than when doing a commisioned work because commisioned works do not always require time making small mock ups, or wasting materials on failed trials. You already know roughly what you are going to make. When working for a gallery space, there can be a lot more time and money involved - mock ups, mistakes, trial and error. You could often put a lot of money into a project, and because there are no deposits being made, it may NEVER sell. You are initially taking risk, and in the end, you could possibly earn nothing.

The narratives within these two types of art practices can be very different. While a gallery work can be a lot more personal to yourself, having your own ideas put into it, A commissioned work can be much more personal to the person you are making it for, fitting it into the consumers own ideals. The people involved in the development of narrartive within a gallery, is yourself. What are your own ideas used to drive the making of your art? How will you chose to portray this? In a private errand, the ideas come from the consumer, and you are the one who will be portraying these ideas. Developing these concepts comes from talking to the consumer, and finding out what they need the artwork for (where it is placed?), and what it will mean to them once it is made.

Also in terms of differences, I found as Grant explained to us in his own ideas on "art", he does not think that something is art, unless it has been publicly displayed. In cases such as this, it could be partly true, because there are only a limited ammount of eyes who will see the piece. It is not shown in the town square, or an uptown gallery, and often it will be overlooked as art because it will be sculpting the landscape of the garden, or enhancing the walls in your home. The art will begin to cross over into the realms of decor. When Hitches sold his first artworks, he noticed that people were not buying his art as art. They were buying them to match their drapes. Even when the art begins to move from gallery, to home, this can definatly occur. Sometimes, we do not always care about the preciousness of an original gallery artwork.

So, I then began to ask myself. Is a regenerated commision made for a home, really so different to a fresh painting, newly thought up for a gallery? They both contain meaningful ideals, and sometimes they may even look similar. Why should I care? It still matches my drapes.

Archival art is not for everyone.

Todays lecture detailed the work of tutor, Steve Lovett. His work as it seems is a collectionary repertior of people and places from his past. Steve likes to work with the idea of people and dialogue, and the way in which this can connect people and places together in a kind of linking web. Viewing some of his works, I could see that a lot of his works were quite archival based in terms of using his own family photographs and such.

Well, If I were to ask my self about the word "Archive", and what that particular word means, I would have to say that it was about collecting. Keeping groups of things together from different parts of time, and storing them away. Photographs, little nick nacks or trinkets, or old clothes from people who wore them in the past. Archives to me are very hoarded. whether it be about your life, or history in general, nothing is thrown away. It is all kept together in groups. I would say that Archiving things would also need to be in some sort of basic order, be it alphabetical, numerical, or even in the order in which these events occured. Although as we saw today, not every archive is ordered. Boltanski was an artist who clearly kept a lot of his work unordered, having tins of random reciepts and bus tickets all crammed together in stacks of rusty biscuit tins. You cannot find anything.

In Steves work I definatly saw an element of archiving. He has kept pieces of his past and turned these into works of art. This very much reminds me of scrap booking. A way of archiving our past. Putting our old photographs, postcards, pieces of hair and articles into an album, and making these into small heirlooms. In Steves work, he has done the same by copying, old photographs from his childhood and from where he grew up, and added to them with print and paint.

For me, I do not see a trend between archives and artists. Neither do I see Autobiographical trends. Not all artists take their past and make it onto art. infact I have only seen a moderate ammount of artists who keep bits of their past and express it in ink ect. Artists like Bauhaus do not use any elements of their past in their work. Bauhaus merely takes shapes and adds further meaning to them. There is no representation of his childhood or past, or even any kind of archival quality added to it. Infact, One of my favorite artists Josephine Wall (image above) is someone who has never used a biographical element to her paintings. All of her works are based on the imaginary.

I do not think that I like the idea of making my art based around a documentary of my life. This is because my own life has never been an inspiration for me. Perhaps my past intregues me a little more, but I am perhaps more interested in the pasts of others. Better still, I would rather not make art that is archival of the past hardly at all. For me a faked archival look can be pretty - vintage looking borders and old documents. However, faking the past in photoshop, by taking old papers and manipulating them is probably as far as I will go. Grunge is something that I enjoy. The stains of life? Not so much.

broad spectrums = lesser knowledge?

Today we were enlightened by the practises of Deborah Crowe. Artist, tutor, and in her mind a "practitioner".

Deborah uses a wide variety of materials ranging from the use of textiles, wire, flax, photoshop to produce digital collaged works, and the use of various other drawing mediums. As Deborah progressed within her art making processes, she began to realise that she wanted to make works which were in a three dimensional world. she wanted works which stood on their own. This was her transformation from using flat flax, and moving into the use of wire to make larger, three dimensional works. She spoke of her thoughts about art, and that she did not see herself as an artist. This was because she did not specialise under any kind of profession. She has knowledge within a wide range of things, and practices them. Hence, her self description.

For my own art practices, I feel that it is crucial to realise what it is that I am enjoying the most, and also what I am absolutely best at. For me, if I know that someting will not take me far in my practices, I usually begin to narrow down my options a little further. For example, I am not mesmerised by jewellery making. For someone who has decided to become unspecialised in my own opinion may lack crucial skills picked up from a specific subject. By specialising, it gives you much more time to practice within one subject, and learn even further skills, to push your learning and understanding of it even more. If you were unspecialised, I would think that someones understanding of say, Digital Photography, (along side several other ideals) would be lesser to a man whom has purely learnt how to use a digital camera and photoshop. These things may come more natural to him because of his constant practice. I do not believe in doing everything for the sake of doing everything.

HOWEVER, although I say this now, I am bound to contradict myself immensely because I also do believe that having a slightly broader spectrum of learning can also be a plus in terms of individuality. You will know more skills, and be more likely to make newer and more unusual works. You will have the freedom to open your mind and create almost anything you think possible. I merely think that having too much knowledge can possibly be a downfall. I also feel that in my own art, I will eventually specialise, although I would have atleast one or two other subjects to back up my art practice because specialising within perhaps a couple of practices can be a very good thing indeed.